Do any VPS providers offer an OpenBSD image?
https://www.tilaa.com does (FreeBSD too)
OpenBSD 6.1 released
71–80 of 83 posts
Re: OpenBSD 6.1 released
#72Sadly I don't often get to play with OpenBSD, but every time I do I'm impressed by how coherent an operation system it is. You really get the feeling that the developers care about delivering a system with a unified expression, where everything is meant to be used together. It's not just kernel bundled with a bunch of tools/programs which sort of seem to work together, but not in the same manor. Even FreeBSD have som…
Heh, as a FreeBSD user primarily, OpenBSD sometimes feels kinda empty to me. No ZFS, no DTrace, no jails, no mandatory access control, no CloudABI, no Linux compat layer…
I actually don't disagree with that, all those features would be nice to have in OpenBSD. However, ZFS for example is "just pulled in" from Solaris and seems a little out of place. It works great, but there seems to be no effort to make it feel like belong.
Re: OpenBSD 6.1 released
#73Sadly I don't often get to play with OpenBSD, but every time I do I'm impressed by how coherent an operation system it is. You really get the feeling that the developers care about delivering a system with a unified expression, where everything is meant to be used together. It's not just kernel bundled with a bunch of tools/programs which sort of seem to work together, but not in the same manor. Even FreeBSD have som…
Heh, as a FreeBSD user primarily, OpenBSD sometimes feels kinda empty to me. No ZFS, no DTrace, no jails, no mandatory access control, no CloudABI, no Linux compat layer…
Aside from ZFS, there is nothing on that list I personally want. And I've never liked mandatory access control - standard UNIX permissions please.
Re: OpenBSD 6.1 released
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heh, as a FreeBSD user primarily, OpenBSD sometimes feels kinda empty to me. No ZFS, no DTrace, no jails, no mandatory access control, no CloudABI, no Linux compat layer…
I actually don't disagree with that, all those features would be nice to have in OpenBSD. However, ZFS for example is "just pulled in" from Solaris and seems a little out of place. It works great, but there seems to be no effort to make it feel like belong.
That's not really true. There has been work to follow in TrueOS's footsteps to have a full ZFS root and integrate that with the installer, system upgrade, et al. as TrueOS does. TrueOS has been leading the way for using ZFS for boot environments on FreeBSD. This is far from "no effort".
* https://www.freebsdnews.com/2016/01/27/zfs-boot-environment-...
Re: OpenBSD 6.1 released
#75Sadly I don't often get to play with OpenBSD, but every time I do I'm impressed by how coherent an operation system it is. You really get the feeling that the developers care about delivering a system with a unified expression, where everything is meant to be used together. It's not just kernel bundled with a bunch of tools/programs which sort of seem to work together, but not in the same manor. Even FreeBSD have som…
Heh, as a FreeBSD user primarily, OpenBSD sometimes feels kinda empty to me. No ZFS, no DTrace, no jails, no mandatory access control, no CloudABI, no Linux compat layer…
... no nmount(), no POSIX RT signals, no "new style" 1990s PTY allocation, no fexecve(), no ACLs, ...
But then FreeBSD itself lacks ACLs on tmpfs, EAs on ZFS, and SO_PEERCRED; and moreover OpenBSD does have wscons.
Re: OpenBSD 6.1 released
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Xenocara may not satisfy performance characteristics the way something like Wayland is. However, Xenocara is pretty awesome in (I believe) being the only X11 server to address the somewhat ugly security model of stuff running as root.
I think most of the popular Linux distributions have been shipping rootless x11 for a few years now, too. Kernel Mode Setting was the big watershed feature.
Interesting, I hadn't known that. Canonical's site indicates that there's some nuance there depending on the video card model though:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Rootless
Also interesting is that support for rootless (at least in Arch) depends on, or perhaps was facilitated by systemd:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Xorg#Rootless_Xorg_.28v...
I don't pay as close attention to Linux developments as I should these days!
Re: OpenBSD 6.1 released
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually don't disagree with that, all those features would be nice to have in OpenBSD. However, ZFS for example is "just pulled in" from Solaris and seems a little out of place. It works great, but there seems to be no effort to make it feel like belong.
That's not really true. There has been work to follow in TrueOS's footsteps to have a full ZFS root and integrate that with the installer, system upgrade, et al. as TrueOS does. TrueOS has been leading the way for using ZFS for boot environments on FreeBSD. This is far from "no effort". * https://www.freebsdnews.com/2016/01/27/zfs-boot-environment-...
Full ZFS root install with boot environments has been in the stock bsdinstall for a while, no TrueOS necessary even :)
Re: OpenBSD 6.1 released
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heh, as a FreeBSD user primarily, OpenBSD sometimes feels kinda empty to me. No ZFS, no DTrace, no jails, no mandatory access control, no CloudABI, no Linux compat layer…
... no nmount(), no POSIX RT signals, no "new style" 1990s PTY allocation, no fexecve(), no ACLs, ... But then FreeBSD itself lacks ACLs on tmpfs, EAs on ZFS, and SO_PEERCRED; and moreover OpenBSD does have wscons.
No fexecve?! OMG.
Yeah, SO_PEERCRED, I remember that one. The sway Wayland compositor relies on it to authenticate privileged programs (desktop bars, screensavers, screenshot tools etc.) When I was porting sway, that really annoyed me.
What are EAs?
Re: OpenBSD 6.1 released
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually don't disagree with that, all those features would be nice to have in OpenBSD. However, ZFS for example is "just pulled in" from Solaris and seems a little out of place. It works great, but there seems to be no effort to make it feel like belong.
That's not really true. There has been work to follow in TrueOS's footsteps to have a full ZFS root and integrate that with the installer, system upgrade, et al. as TrueOS does. TrueOS has been leading the way for using ZFS for boot environments on FreeBSD. This is far from "no effort". * https://www.freebsdnews.com/2016/01/27/zfs-boot-environment-...
Fair enough, though that wasn't really what I meant. I was think in terms of reworking the tools or either using the fstab for ZFS or forgo using it for any filesystem.
I completely understand why these thing aren't being done, but not doing them mean that something will remain a little out of place.
Re: OpenBSD 6.1 released
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heh, as a FreeBSD user primarily, OpenBSD sometimes feels kinda empty to me. No ZFS, no DTrace, no jails, no mandatory access control, no CloudABI, no Linux compat layer…
OpenBSD does seem empty by comparison, but it's on purpose. ZFS is large and complicated. http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/ZFS-on-OpenBSD DTrace would be nice to have, but I believe there are CDDL license concerns. Jails are a way of isolating services so that they cannot do (much) damage to the system in the event they are compromised. The closest alternative in OpenBSD is probably pledge(2), which allows a progr…
pledge is not similar to jails in any way, jails are "chroot on steroids" (isolate network, PIDs, users, etc.)
pledge is more similar to Capsicum. It is simpler to implement in some programs, sure, but:
1) I don't like how pledge just kills the program. Rude. Capsicum refuses the offending operation.
2) Capsicum has an absolutely brilliant feature for directory access — you just open() a file descriptor to a directory, then you cap_enter()… and in the sandbox mode you can use openat() to open files below that directory! This is just so clever. Meanwhile pledge promised a simple directory whitelist option that is STILL NOT IMPLEMENTED :(
CloudABI is a portable ABI that can be described as POSIX plus Capsicum minus anything incompatible with Capsicum. So CloudABI programs start already in capability mode, expecting necessary file descriptors to be already open (there's a launcher tool for that). You can just run CloudABI binaries unmodified on several operating systems and they are always sandboxed, they have no way to access anything you didn't pass to them. CloudABI is out-of-the-box supported on FreeBSD, there are kernel patches for NetBSD and Linux, and a user-mode syscall translator for macOS. https://nuxi.nl/cloudabi/